St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence
Part III of His Life
by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin
VI. THE CONCLUSION OF THE UNION
TO THE OTHER afflictions
which the Orthodox delegation suffered in Florence was added the
death of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch was found
dead in his room.
On the table lay
(supposedly) his testament, Extrema Sententia, consisting
in all of some lines in which he declared that he accepted
everything that the Church of Rome confesses. And then: "In
like manner I acknowledge the Holy Father of Fathers, the Supreme
Pontiff and Vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pope of Old Rome.
Likewise, I acknowledge purgatory. In affirmation of this, I
affix my signature."
There is no doubt whatever
that Patriarch Joseph did not write this document. The German
scholar Frommann, who made a detailed investigation of the
"Testament" of Patriarch Joseph, says: "This
document is so Latinized and corresponds so little to the opinion
expressed by the Patriarch several days before, that its
spuriousness is evident." [1] The ''Testament"
appears in the history of the Council of Florence quite late;
contemporaries of the Council knew nothing of it.
And so the Greek delegation
lost its Patriarch. Although the Patriarch was no pillar of
Orthodoxy, and though one may reproach him in much, still one
cannot deny that with his whole soul he grieved for Orthodoxy and
never allowed himself or anyone else to injure St. Mark. Being
already in deep old age [2], he lacked the energy to
defend the Church of which he was head, but history cannot
reproach him for betraying the Church. Death spared him from the
many and grievous humiliations which the Orthodox Church
subsequently had to endure. And on the other hand the absence of
his signature on the Act of Union later gave occasion for the
defenders of Orthodoxy to contest the pretension of the Council
of Florence to the significance and title of ''Ecumenical
Council," because the Act of every Ecumenical Council must
be signed first of all by the Patriarchs.
After the death of the
Patriarch, as Syropoulos informs us, Emperor John Paleologos took
the direction of the Church into his own hands. This
anticanonical situation, although often encountered in Byzantine
history, as well in a positive as in a negative manifestation,
was strictly condemned by St. Mark in one of his epistles, where
he says: ''Let no one dominate in our faith: neither emperor, nor
hierarch, nor false council, nor anyone else, but only the one
God, Who both Himself and through His Disciples has handed it
down to us." [3]
Let us set forth in brief
the further history of the negotiations between the Orthodox and
the Latinsor, to speak more truly, the history of the
capitulation of the Orthodox. The Orthodox were obliged to accept
the Latin teaching of the filioque and acknowledge the
Latin dogma of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, in the sense of
His Existence, from the Two Hypostases. Then the Orthodox were
obliged to declare that the filioque, as an
addition within the Symbol of Faith, had always been a
canonical and blessed act. By this alone there were reduced to
naught all the objections of the Greeks from the time of
Patriarch Photios, as well as the works of St. Mark of Ephesus
and the interdictions for changing the Symbol of Faith which had
been made at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. One should
also note that not all the Roman Popes had approved of the filioque,
and several had considered its introduction into the Symbol
of Faith completely uncanonical. But now all this was forgotten.
Everything was sacrificed to the demands of Pope Eugenius and his
cardinals.
Further, it was demanded of
the Orthodox to accept the Latin teaching concerning the
consecration of the Holy Gifts and renounce their own as
expressed in the performance of the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern
Church. [4] Besides, this was expressed by the Latins in
disdainful declarations concerning the Liturgical practice of the
Eastern Church.
Finally, the Orthodox were
obliged to sign and acknowledge a confession of Papism, expressed
thus: "We decree that the Holy Apostolic Throne and Roman
Pontiff possess a primacy over the whole earth, and that this
Roman Pontiff is the Successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, and is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the
whole Church, Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; and that our
Lord Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter has given him full
authority to shepherd, direct and rule the whole Church, as is
likewise contained in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and in
the holy canons." [5] The Orthodox were likewise
forced to acknowledge purgatory.
And so Orthodoxy was to
cease to exist. Something even more painful was the fact that
Orthodoxy had been sold, and not merely betrayed. For when
a majority of the Orthodox delegates had found that the Vatican's
demands were completely unacceptable, certain warm partisans of
the Union had asked the Pope to inform them openly what
advantages Byzantium would derive from the Union. The Pope
grasped the "business" side of the question and offered
the following: (1) The Vatican would provide the means to send
the Greeks back to Constantinople. (2) 300 (!) soldiers would be
maintained at Papal expense in Constantinople for the defense of
the capital against the Turks (3) Two ships would be maintained
on the Bosphorus for defense of the city. (4) A crusade would go
through Constantinople. (5) The Pope would summon the Western
sovereigns to the aid of Byzantium. The last two promises were
purely theoretical. However, when the negotiations came to a dead
end, and the Emperor himself was ready to break off further
negotiations, the whole affair was settled by four metropolitans,
partisans of the Union; and the affair was concluded with a
lavish entertainment given by the Pope; theological disputes
concerning the privileges of the See of Rome were conducted over
wineglasses.
The end came at last. An
Act of Union was drawn up in which the Orthodox renounced their
Orthodoxy and accepted all the Latin formulas and innovations
which had only just appeared in the bosom of the Latin Church,
such as the teaching on purgatory. They accepted also an extreme
form of Papism, by this act renouncing the ecclesiology that was
the essence of the Orthodox Church. All the Orthodox delegates
accepted and signed the Union, whether for themselves or, in the
case of some, for the Eastern Patriarchs, by whom they had been
entrusted to represent them. The signing, on July 5, 1439, was
accompanied by a triumphant service, and after the solemn
declaration of the Union, read in Latin and Greek, the Greek
delegates kissed the Pope's knee.
Administratively speaking,
the whole Orthodox Church signed: Emperor John, the metropolitans
and representatives of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Metropolitan
of Kiev Isidore, and the Russian Bishop Abraham. Only one
hierarch did not sign. It would be superfluous to mention his
name: St. Mark of Ephesus. But no one paid the least attention to
him. What was one man, and he humiliated and fatally ill, in
comparison with the all powerful Vatican, headed by the mighty
Pope Eugenius IV? What was this one Greek in comparison with the
whole multitude of Greek dignitaries headed by Emperor John, and
the Greek metropolitans? There is a Russian proverb: ''One alone
on the field is no warrior." However, in this one man
was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church. This one
man represented in himself the whole Orthodox Church. He was a
giant of giants, bearing in himself all the sanctity of Orthodoxy
and all its might! And this is why, when Pope Eugenius was
solemnly shown by his cardinals the Act of Union, signed by all
the Greek delegates, he said, not finding on it the signature of
St. Mark: "And so we have accomplished nothing." All
the success of the Vatican was illusory and short-lived. The Pope
attempted by every means to compel St. Mark to sign the Union, a
fact that is attested both by Andrew of Rhodes [6] and
Syropoulos. [7] The Pope demanded that St. Mark be
deprived of his rank then and there for his refusal to sign the
Act of Union. But Emperor John did not allow him to be harmed,
because in the depths of his heart he respected St. Mark.
Syropoulos relates the
final meeting of St. Mark with the Pope. "The Pope asked of
the Emperor that St. Mark appear before him. The Emperor, having
summoned him beforehand, persuaded him, saying:'When the Pope
asks you to appear before him already two and three times, you
must go to him; but have no fear, for I have spoken and requested
and arranged with the Pope so that you will be given no offense
or injury. And so, go and listen to everything he says, and reply
openly in whatever manner will seem to you the most suitable.'
And so Mark went to appear before the Pope, and finding him
sitting informally in his own quarters with his cardinals and his
bishops, he was uncertain in what fashion he should express
respect to the Pope. Seeing that all who surrounded the Pope were
sitting, he said: 'I have been suffering from a kidney ailment
and severe gout and have not the strength to stand,' and
proceeded to sit in his place. The Pope spoke long with Mark; his
aim was to persuade him also to follow the decision of the
Council and affirm the Union, and if he refused to do this, then
he should know that he would be subject to the same interdictions
which previous Ecumenical Councils laid upon the obstinate, who,
deprived of every gift of the Church, were case out as heretics.
To the Pope's words Mark gave an extensive, commanding reply.
Concerning the interdictions with which the Pope threatened him,
he said: 'The Councils of the Church have condemned as rebels
those who have transgressed against some dogma and have preached
thus and fought for this, for which reason also they are called
''heretics''; and from the beginning the Church has condemned the
heresy itself, and only then has it condemned the leaders of the
heresy and its defenders. But I have by no means preached my own
teaching, nor have I introduced anything new in the Church, nor
defended any foreign and false doctrine; but I have held only
that teaching which the Church received in perfect form from our
Saviour, and in which it has steadfastly remained to this day:
the teaching which the Holy Church of Rome, before the schism
that occurred between us, possessed no less than our Eastern
Church; the teaching which, as holy, you formerly were wont to
praise, and often at this very Council you mentioned with respect
and honor, and which no one could reproach or dispute. And if I
hold it and do not allow myself to depart from it, what Council
will subject me to the interdiction to which heretics are
subject? What sound and pious mind will act thus with me? For
first of all one must condemn the teaching which I hold; but if
you acknowledge it as pious and Orthodox, then why am I deserving
of punishment?' Having said this and more of the like, and
listened to the Pope, he returned to his quarters." [8]
V. AFTER THE COUNCIL
St. Mark returned to
Constantinople with Emperor John on February 1,1440. What a
sorrowful return it was! No sooner had the Emperor managed to set
foot on land than he was informed of the death of his beloved
wife; after this the Emperor out of sorrow did not leave his
quarters for three months. None of the hierarchs would agree to
accept the post of Patriarch of Constantinople, knowing that this
post would oblige one to proceed with the Union. The people who
met them, as the Greek historian Doukas testifies, asked the
Orthodox delegates who had signed the Union: "How did the
Council go? Were we victorious?" To which the hierarchs
replied: "No! We sold our faith, we bartered piety for
impiety (i.e., Orthodox doctrine for heresy) and have become
azymites." The people asked then: "Why did you
sign?" "From fear of the Latins," ''Did the Latins
then beat you or put you in prison?" ''No. But our right
hand signed: let it be cut off! Our tongue confessed: let it be
torn out!" [9]
A painful silence set in.
Despite the Great Lent, the season most filled with prayer,
churches were empty and there were no services: no one wished to
serve with those who had signed the Union. In Constantinople
revolution was ripening. St. Mark alone was pure in heart and had
no reproach on his conscience. But he too suffered immeasurably.
Around him united all the zealots for Orthodoxy, especially the
monks of the Holy Mountain (Athos) and the ordinary village
priests. The whole episcopate, the whole courtall was in
the hands of the Uniates, in absolute submission to the
representatives of the Vatican, who came often to inspect how the
Union was being carried out among the people. The Church was in
extreme danger; as St. Mark wrote: "the night of Union
encompassed the Church." [10]
St. Mark became weak in
body, but in spirit he burned, and because of this, as John
Eugenikos writes, "by Divine Providence he miraculously
escaped danger, and the radiant one radiantly returned and was
preserved for the fatherland, being met by a universal enthusiasm
and respect." [11] The Byzantine people did not
accept the Union: while all the exhortations of the partisans of
the Union were ignored, the flaming sermons of St. Mark found an
enthusiastic response, as Professor Ostrogorsky notes. [12]
Contemporaries of these events, passionate Uniates, note with
indignation and perplexity St. Mark's activity for the harm of
the Union. Thus Joseph, Bishop of Methonensis, writes: ''Having
returned to Constantinople, Ephesus disturbed and confused the
Eastern Church by his writings and addresses directed against the
decrees of the Council of Florence." [13] Andrew of
Rhodes calls the letters of St. Mark, which he sent out for the
strengthening of Orthodoxy, ''most noxious" and
''seductive." [14] And present-day Church historians,
both Orthodox and Latin, acknowledge that the shattering of the
Union of Florence was due to the writings and activity of St.
Mark. [15]
St. Mark did not remain
long in Constantinople, but soon, without informing the Emperor,
left for Ephesus, his see, which it is possible he had not yet
visited, since immediately after his consecration in
Constantinople he had left for the Council in Italy. [16]
Two reasons, it would appear, impelled St. Mark to leave
Constantinople for Ephesus: pastoral concern for his flock, which
found itself under the Turks in the most woeful circumstances;
and the desire to unite spiritually around himself those who were
zealous for Orthodoxy, in so far as in Constantinople he had
actually been under house arrest. It would appear that it is
precisely from Ephesus that St. Mark sent his letters, his
confession of faith, and his account of his activity at the
Council of Florence. All these documents are to be found in my
book in Russian translation.
Concerning the activity of
St. Mark in Ephesus, John Eugenikos writes briefly thus:
"Actively traveling everywhere throughout the regions of the
great Evangelist and Theologian John, and doing this over long
periods and with labor and difficulty, being sick in body;
visiting the suffering holy churches, and especially constructing
the church of the metropoly with the adjoining buildings;
ordaining priests; helping those suffering injustice, whether by
reason of persecution, or of some trial from the side of the
unrighteous; defending widows and orphans; shaming, interdicting,
comforting, exhorting, appealing, strengthening: he was,
according to the divine Apostle, everything for everyone." [17]
John Eugenikos further declares that inasmuch as the Saint had
sufficiently sacrificed himself for his flock, while his constant
desire had been monastic solitude and seclusion, he finally
desired to go to the Holy Mountain. But there was yet another
reason, a more weighty one, about which John Eugenikos was silent
for political reasons; St. Mark himself relates this in one of
his letters: he had no mandate from the authorities and for this
reason his stay in Ephesus was as it were illegal, and he was
compelled to leave his flock, this time forever. [18]
The ship on which St. Mark
sailed to Athos put in at the island of Limnos, one of the few
islands that still belonged to Byzantium. Here St. Mark was
recognized by the police authorities and, by a directive which
they already possessed from Emperor John Paleologos, was arrested
and imprisoned. For the space of two years St. Mark suffered in
confinement. John Eugenikos thus informs us of this period in the
Saint's life: "Here who would not deservedly marvel, or
would not acknowledge the greatness of soul and enduring of
misfortunes which he showed: suffering in the burning sun and
struggling with privations of the most necessary things and
tormented by diseases that came one upon the other, or enduring
painful confinement while the fleet of the impious Moslems
surrounded the island and inflicted destruction." [19]
Once the island was threatened by imminent disaster from a
Turkish fleet which surrounded the island. But the danger
unexpectedly passed, and the saved inhabitants ascribed their
salvation to the prayers of St. Mark, imprisoned in the fortress.
[20]
St. Mark never complained
about his miserable condition; only in one letter can we see how
he suffered and how he was wanting in support from people. He
writes thus to the Pro-hegumenos of Vatoped Monastery: "We
have found great consolation from your brothers who are here, the
most honorable ecclesiarch and the great economos and others,
whom we have seen as inspired images of your love and piety; for
they have shown us love and have calmed and strengthened us. May
the Lord grant you a worthy reward for their labor and
love!" [21]
Finding himself in such
painful circumstances, St. Mark continued his battle for the
Church, as he writes in one of his letters: "I have been
arrested. But the word of God and the power of Truth cannot be
bound, but all the stronger flow and prosper, and many of the
brethren, encouraged by my exile, overthrow the reproaches of the
lawless and the violators of the Orthodox Faith and the customs
of the fatherland." [22] He knew that his confession
was indispensable, because, as he wrote: "If there had been
no persecution, the martyrs would not have shone, nor would the
confessors have received the crown of victory from Christ and by
their exploits strengthened and gladdened the Orthodox
Church." [23] In two years Emperor John ordered St.
Mark released and allowed to go where he wished. This liberation
occurred on the day when the Seven Martyr-youths of Ephesus are
commemorated, and St. Mark dedicated to them a poem of
thanksgiving. [24] St. Mark no longer had the physical
strength for ascetic labors on the Holy Mountain; he had become
quite feeble, and so he left for his home in Constantinople.
The last year and one-half
or two years of his holy life St. Mark spent in painful
circumstances of disease and persecution by the Uniate episcopate
and Court. At this time he restored many to Orthodoxy by his
personal influence. [25] Especially beneficial for the
Church was the return of George Scholarios, who subsequently
occupied the position of leader in the battle for Orthodoxy;
after the fall of Constantinople he was elected Patriarch of
Constantinople.
During this time, i.e., the
last two years of St. Mark's life, much happened. The Eastern
Patriarchs condemned the Council of Florence and named it
"tyrannical and foul," and refused to recognize the
Union. When Metropolitan Isidore, one of the most unprincipled
betrayers of Orthodoxy, appeared in Moscow preceded by the Papal
cross, he was arrested by the Grand Prince of Moscow Vassily
Vassilievich, and subsequently he was helped to flee to Rome,
where he received a cardinal's hat. A tradition is preserved that
St. Mark was much gladdened by the conduct of the Grand Prince of
Moscow and set him up as an example to the Byzantine authorities.
[26]
In Constantinople itself,
however, the Union was being significantly strengthened. One may
say that the Union not only became the State Church of Byzantium,
but also gradually took possession, through the episcopate, of
the whole of Church life. Only certain individuals, grouped
around St. Mark, represented at that time the Orthodox Church.
Permanent representatives of the Vatican, including Cardinal
Isidore, saw to the official loyalty to the Union of the
Byzantine Church and Court, placing in connection with this the
fulfillment also of the Papal promises to Byzantium. The danger
to the Church was immense, and St. Mark was aware of this. He was
aware that before everything else should be placed the battle for
Orthodoxy, for, as he said, ''murdered souls which have been
tempted concerning the sacrament of Faith." [27] And
he, the leader of the battle, marching at the head of the army,
was scarcely able to walk, exhausted by disease and harassed by
the wiles of men. But the power of God is accomplished in
weakness!
VIII. THE DEATH OF ST. MARK
St. Mark died on June 23,
1444, [28] at the age of 52. George Scholarios writes thus
of St. Mark's death: ''But our sorrow was increased yet more by
the fact that he was taken away from our embrace before he had
grown old in the virtues which he had acquired, before we could
sufficiently enjoy his presence, in the full power of this
passing life! No defect nor cunning had the power to shake his
mind, nor to lead astray his soul, so strongly was it nourished
and tempered by virtue! Even if the vault of heaven should fall,
even then the righteousness of this man would not be shaken, his
strength would not fail, his soul would not be moved, and his
thought would not be impaired by such difficult trials." [29]
He suffered terribly for
fourteen days before his death. Of St. Mark's death itself there
has been preserved the account of his brother, the Nomophilax
John, who relates: "Thus, having lived with love of God and
in everything excelled in his sojourn from his youth to the
divine Skhema: in the most holy Skhema, in the degrees of
priestly service, in the hierarchal dignity, in arguments
concerning the Orthodox Faith and in devout and passionless
confession,having attained fifty-two years of bodily age,
in the month of June on the twenty-third day he departed
rejoicing to Him to Whom he wished, according to Paul, to be
dissolved to be with Him, Whom he glorified by good works, Whom
he theologized in Orthodox fashion, Whom he pleased his whole
life long. He was sick for fourteen days, and the disease itself,
as he himself said, had upon him the same effect as those iron
instruments of torture applied by executioners to the holy
martyrs, and which as it were girdled his ribs and internal
organs, pressed upon them and remained attached in such a state
and caused absolutely unbearable pain; so that it happened that
what men could not do with his sacred martyr's body was fulfilled
by disease, according to the unutterable judgment of Providence,
in order that this Confessor of Truth and Martyr and Conqueror of
all possible sufferings and Victor should appear before God after
going through every misery, and that even to his last
breath, as gold tried in the furnace, and in order that thanks to
this he might receive yet greater honor and rewards eternally
from the just judge." [30]
Although his agony was
painful in the extreme, death itself came easily, and the Saint
joyfully gave to God his blessed and radiant spirit. John
Eugenikos tells us this: "Long before his death he gave
instructions and like a father gave commands to those present
concerning the correction of the Church and our piety and open
preservation of the true dogmas of the Church, and concerning
turning away from innovation; and adding his final words: 'Lord
Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, into Thy hands I commit my
spirit,' he thus departed to God." [31] Before the
end, on the very day of his death, St Mark gave over to his
former student and spiritual son the leadership of the Orthodox
Church, although George Scholarios was at that time still a
secular prince. St. Mark was buried in the Mangana Monastery in
Constantinople. "Amidst a throng of people and guards with
numerous marks of respect, there was placed in the sacred
monastery of Mangana dedicated to the divine Martyr George, with
honor, as a treasure, the sacred and greatly honored vessel of a
sanctified soul and a temple to the glory of God, Who is
glorified and wondrous in His Saints." [32]
From the funeral address of
George Scholarios we may see the depth of the sorrow that
overcame Orthodox people with the loss of such a great pillar of
the Church and such a good and noble man, such a meek and
approachable and such a learned man, who, in the expression of
John Eugenikos, drew all to himself as a magnet attracts iron. [33]
But the triumph of Orthodoxy was accomplished only after the
death of St. Mark. The successor of Emperor John, his brother
Constantine, openly announced his desire to preserve Orthodoxy in
its purity. [34] Not long before the Fall of
Constantinople a Council was convoked at which the Union and its
promoters were triumphantly condemned and the Union itself
overthrown, and the memory of St. Mark honored by all. This
Council was more nominal than actual, and was composed of a quite
small number of participants; historically it did not present
itself as much, but as an expression of the Orthodox Church it
has a great significance as the triumphant conclusion of the
battle that St. Mark waged, as a Council of the Orthodox Church,
however small she may have been at that time. [35]
IX. COMMEMORATION AND MIRACLES OF ST. MARK
The solemn commemoration of
St. Mark of Ephesus belonged at first to the family Eugenikos.
Every year, probably on the day of the Saint's death, the
Eugenikos family celebrated a "Service" (Akolouthia)
and a synaxarion was read consisting of a short Life of the
Saint. It should be noted that in Byzantium the Akolouthia was
not necessarily connected with a canonization of the dead; it was
simply a eulogy of the dead. Akolouthii were written by
students to their teachers, to their benefactors and to people
close to them, who were of righteous life. These Akolouthii were
for domestic use, and they exist for many who were never
canonized by the Church; there is one dedicated to Emperor Manuel
II Paleologos that was probably written by St Mark himself. [36]
And so the solemn
commemoration of St Mark of Ephesus was celebrated at first in
the Eugenikos family circle. A wider glorification of St. Mark
was aided by George Scholarios in his capacity of Patriarch of
Constantinople Decades passed, and then centuries, and the memory
of St. Mark ever more broadly became glorified among devout
people, in holy monasteries and churches; and finally, nearly 300
years after the death of the Saint, in 1734, the Holy Synod of
the Church of Constantinople, under the presidency of Patriarch
Seraphim, brought out a decree of canonization of St Mark of
Ephesus January 19 was instituted as the date of the Saint's
commemoration. [37] As a result, to the two ancient
services that already existed (translated in our book into Church
Slavonic for use in Church services), [38] were added six
more services, but they are inferior to the ancient services to
the Saint.
In the book of Doukake, Iaspis
Tou Noetou Paradeisou for the month of January there is found
the following miracle performed by St. Mark many years after his
death. "A very honorable man named Demetrios Zourbaios had a
sister who became grievously ill. Wherefore he called in all the
doctors of Mesolongion and spent much money on them. They,
however, brought no benefit to his sister, but rather she became
worse. For three days she lose all speech and movement, being
totally unconscious, so that even the doctors decided that she
was going to die. Then he and the rest of her relatives began
preparing the necessities for the funeral. But, most
unexpectedly, they heard a voice and a great groan coming from
her, and turning towards them she said, 'Why don t you change my
clothes, since I have been drenched?' Her brother became
overjoyed upon hearing her speak, and running to her he asked
what was the matter and how she became so wet. She answered, 'A
certain bishop came here, took me by my hand, and led me to a
fountain and put me inside a cistern. After he had washed me, he
said to me, "Return now; you no longer have any
illness."' But her brother again asked her, 'Why didn't you
ask him that granted you your health who he was?' And she said,
'I asked him, ' Who are you, your holiness? and he told me,
"I am the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos."'
And having said these things, she arose immediately from the bed
without any remnant of illness. When they took her to change her
clothes, they were all amazedO, the wonder!seeing
that not only were her clothes soaked, but even the bed and the
other blankets upon which she had lain. After this miracle, the
above-mentioned woman made an icon of St. Mark for a memorial of
the miracle, and having lived piously for fifteen more years, she
departed to the Lord. [39]
To this article is appended
an extremely valuable document: the appeal of St. Mark to those
present on the very day of his death, his special exhortation to
George Scholarios, in which he begs him to take upon himself the
leadership of the Orthodox Church, and the reply of George
Scholarios to St Mark. [40]
We shall conclude our short
sketch of the life and activity of St. Mark of Ephesus with the
invocation with which the ancient biographer of the Saint ends
his Synaxarion:
By thy
prayers of St Mark, Christ our God, and all Thy holy Fathers,
Teachers and Theologians, preserve Thy Church in Orthodox
confession unto the ages!
Endnotes
* "our book" refers to St. Mark of Ephesus and the Union of
Florence, by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin (Jordanville:
Holy Trinity Monastery, 1963). In Russian.
- After Hefele, Histoire
des Conciles, vol. VII, pt. II, pp. 1015sq.
- See the address of St.
Mark to Pope Eugenius, pt. I; in our book, p. 40.
- Epistle of St. Mark to
the abbot of Vataped Monastery, pt. 2; in our book, p 354
- Although this was not
included in the Act of Union itself, nonetheless the
Orthodox were required to sign a special document
concerning this St. Mark wrote a special tractate (Rust
tr. in our book, pp. 295-301), in which he demonstrates
the correctness of the Orthodox tradition, founded on
Apostolic and Patristic tradition.
- The Act of Union; Rus.
tr. in our book, p. 306.
- The Testimony of
Archbp. Andrew of Rhodes concerning St. Mark of Ephesus;
Rus tr. of the Latin text in our book, pp 109-110.
- See the narrative
included below from the book of Syropoulos, True
History, sec X, ch. 12, ed. Creighton, pp,
299-300; Rus. tr. in our book, pp 312-3.
- See preceding note.
- In our book, p. 300.
- Epistle of St. Mark to
George Scholarios, pt. 2; Rus. tr. in our book, p. 341.
- From the Synaxarion to
St. Mark, p. 322 in our book.
- Ostrogorsky, History
of the Byzantine State, Oxford, 1956, p. 500.
- Josephi Methonensis
Episcopi Synaxarium Concil. Florentini. Migne, Patrologia
Graeca, vol. 159, col. 1105.
- See note 6.
- Vogt, Dictionnaire
de la Theologie Catholique, vol. 6, p 37. Buzzone in Dizionario
Ecclesiastico, 1955, p. 821. Meyer in Realencyclopaedie
fuer Protestant Theologie und Kirche, vol. 12, pp.
287-8. Pandelakis in Megale Ellenike Egkuklopaideia, Athens,
vol. 11, p 105-6; etc.
- I maintain this
opinion in my book, pp 28-9.
- Rus. tr. of the
Synaxarion to St. Mark in our book, p. 325.
- Epistle of St. Mark to
Hieromonk Theophan on Euboia Island, pt. 1; Rus. tr. in
our book, p. 356.
- Rus. tr. in our book,
p. 326.
- Ibid
- Pt. 1; p. 354 in our
book
- See note 18.
- Epistle of St Mark to
the Ecumenical Patriarch; Rus. tr in our book, p. 352.
- Published by
Papadopoulos-Kerameus in Anekdota Ellenika, Constantinople,
1884, pp. 102-3; later by Mgr. L. Petit in Revue de
lOrient chretien, Paris, 1923, pp. 414-5; Rus.
tr. in our book, pp. 227-8.
- Of this the Great
Orator Manuel testifies in his Synaxarion to Saint Mark;
see in our book, p 354.
- According to A. Norov,
Journey to the Seven Churches Mentioned in the
Apocalypse, St Petersburg, 1847, p. 286.
- Epistle of St Mark to
George Scholarios, pt. 3; see our book, p. 341.
- On the date of St
Marks death there have been many suppositions and
much scholarly debate; we hold to the opinion of Mgr. L.
Petit.
- From the Funeral
Oration of George Scholarios to St. Mark, pt. 10; Rus.
tr. publ. by A. Norov in Unpublished Works of Mark of
Ephesus and George Scholarios, Paris, 1859.
- From our translation
of the Synaxarion to St. Mark, p. 366.
- Ibid
- From the Synaxarion of
John Eugenikos.
- From the Service to
St Mark, Canon, Song 7.
- Prof A. Kartashev, Outline
of the History of the Russian Church, vol. 1, p. 360.
- The question of the
Council of Constantinople of 1450 has been a subject of
scholarly debate.
- See our essay (in
Russian) in Orthodox Path for 1966: "From the
Writings of the Most Pious Emperor Manuel I
Paleologos," pp. 47ff.
- Information on the
canonization of St. Mark was taken from the essay of
Papadopoulos-Kerameus , "Mark os o Eugenikos os
Pater Agios tes Orthodoxou Katholikes Ekklesias," in
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 1902, vol. 11,
pp. 50-69.
- pp. 385-400 in our
book; the Rev. Abbot Alypy of Holy Trinity Monastery,
Jordanville, N.Y., helped us in this translation.
- K. Doukske, op.
cit., Athens, 1889, pp. 397-429; Rus. tr. in our
book, pp. 414-5. (The present translation is direct from
the Greek, courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery,
Boston, Mass.)
- For manuscripts and
editions of this document, see our book, p. 368, where
will be found also the Russian translation from which the
following English translation was taken.
ADDRESS OF ST. MARK OF EPHESUS ON THE DAY OF HIS DEATH
On the final day of his
earthly life, the last thoughts of St. Mark were not for himself,
but for Orthodoxy, to which he had devoted his whole life.
Appealing to his followers to stand firm in the battle for
Orthodoxy, he turned especially to one man in whom he hoped to
find a successor to himself as leader in this battle. This hope
was richly fulfilled in the person of George Scholarios, who
became an ardent champion of Orthodox and, as first Patriarch of
Constantinople after the fall of Byzantium, was instrumental in
freeing the Church from the yoke of the false Union. He was
subsequently canonized under his monastic name of Gennadios and
is commemorated on August 31.
I WISH TO EXPRESS MY
OPINION in more detail, especially now that my death is
approaching, so as to be consistent with myself from beginning to
end, and lest anyone should think that I have said one thing and
concealed another in my thoughts, foe which it would be just to
shame me in this hour of my death.
Concerning the Patriarch I
shall say this, lest it should perhaps occur to him to show me a
certain respect at the burial of this my humble body, or to send
to my grave any of his hierarchs or clergy or in general any of
those in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or to
join the priests invited to it from amongst us, thinking that at
some time, or perhaps secretly, I had allowed communion with him.
And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my
views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I
hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present
that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not
accept communion with him or with those who are with him, not in
this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the
Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted,
and for the enforcement of which he has occupies this presiding
place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church.
I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and
those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints; and to
the degree that I separate myself from them am I in union with
the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the
Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count
themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the
blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just
as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so
at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away
from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that
none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and
likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to
join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be
to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely
separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction
and peace to His Church.
THEN,
TURNING TO THE DIGNITARY SCHOLARIOS, HE SAID:
I speak now of the
dignitary Scholarios, whom I knew from his early youth, to whom I
am well-disposed, and for whom I have great love, as for my own
son and friend... In my intercourse and conversation with him
even to the present time, I have conceived a clear picture of his
exceptional prudence and wisdom and power with words, and
therefore I believe that he is the only one to be found at the
present time who is able to extend a helping hand to the Orthodox
Church, which is agitated by the attacks of those who would
destroy the perfection of the dogmas, and likewise, with the help
of God, to correct the Church and affirm Orthodoxy, if only he
will not wish himself to retreat from the deed and hide his
candlestick under a bushel. But I am thoroughly convinced that he
will not act thus and, seeing the Church in distress from the
waves and the Faith in dependence upon infirm man (I speak
according to human standards), and knowing that it is possible
for him to help her, he will not to such a degree disobey his
conscience as not to haste with all speed and readiness to enter
the battle; for being wise, he is not at all unaware that the
destruction of the Orthodox Faith would be the general perdition.
It is true that in the
past, considering that the battle which was being conducted by
others, especially by me, was sufficient, he did not reveal
himself as an open champion of the Truth, being compelled, it may
be, by counsels or by individuals. But I too at an earlier time
carried nothing or quite little into the battle, having
sufficiency neither of strength nor of zeal; and now I have
already become nothing: and is there anything less than nothing?
And so if then he likewise supposed that we ourselves could set
something right, and he considered it superfluous for himself to
do what others could do, as well as what, with his completely
insignificant help, would be harmful to others, as he often
explained to me, asking pardonthen at the present time,
when I am departing from hence, I see no other equal to him who
could take my place in the Church and the Faith and in the dogmas
of Orthodoxy. Therefore I consider him worthy, being called or
rather compelled by the times, to reveal the spark of piety
hidden in him and fight for the Church and sound doctrine; so
that what I could not accomplish, he might set right, with the
help of God. For by the grace of God he can do this, with the
mind he has been given and his power of words, if he will only
desire to use these at the propitious time.
And he is equally obliged
in his relation to God and Faith and Church to fight faithfully
and purely for the Faith. And I myself lay upon him this battle,
so that he would be defender of the Church and leader of sound
teaching and champion of right doctrines and the Truth in my
place, having support in God and in the Truth itself, about which
the very battle is being waged; so that being a participant in
this with the Holy Teachers and God.bearing Fathers, the great
theologians, he would receive his reward from the Just Judge when
He declares victorious all those who fought for Piety. But he
himself must with all his strength exert zeal for the well-being
of the right doctrines of the Church, as being obliged to give an
answer for this on the Judgment Day to God and to me, who have
entrusted this to him and have likewise reckoned upon bringing
into the Good Land these words with over a hundredfold fruits to
come from them. Let him answer me concerning this, so that
departing the present life I might have perfect confidence, and
that I might not die in sorrow, despairing over the correction of
the Church.
THE REPLY OF LORD SCHOLARIOS:
I, your Holy Eminence,
first of all thank your great holiness for the praises which you
have spoken of me; for, having desired to show me favor, you have
testified of me such great things as I do not possess, and I am
convinced that this is not even near to me. But this proceeds
from the height of goodness and virtue and wisdom of your great
holiness, in which I myself, seeing it from the beginning, have
not ceased to delight even to the present time, as is indeed
owing in relation to your great holiness, as a father and teacher
and preceptor; and being directed, as by a rule, by your perfect
understanding of the dogmas and the justness of the judgments
which you have accepted and with which I am in accord, and
likewise rejecting without doubt what is not in accord with your
judgment, I have never refused to fulfill my duty as a son and
disciple in relation to your great holiness. You, your great
holiness, are yourself a witness to this. You know that I have
always acted thus toward you, and revealing the deeper feelings
of my convictions, I have given you these vows.
Concerning the fact that
earlier I did not step out openly into the battle which your
great holiness was waging, but kept silent, no one knows better
the reason for this than your great holiness, for I often
confided my arguments to you and sincerely opened my heart
concerning this and begged forgiveness, and I was not deprived of
it. But now, with God's help, I have come to despise this, and
have made myself a sincere and open defender of the Truth, in
order fearlessly to proclaim the dogmas of my Fathers and the
perfection of Orthodoxy, in accordance with the view of your
greatest holiness. I say this not because I see you already taken
from hence, for we have not abandoned our last hopes, but we hope
in God that you will recover from your infirmity and will be with
us and will labor together in this. If, however, by the judgments
known to God, you will depart from hence to that place of rest
which you have prepared for yourself, and if by reason also of
our unworthiness you will go there where you are worthy to
dwell,then, affirming absolutely, I say to you before God
and the Holy Angels who now stand invisibly before us, and before
the many and worthy men here present, that in everything I shall
be in place of you and in place of your tongue, and of that with
which you burned and which you handed down with love, I myself,
both defending and offering to all, will betray absolutely
nothing, but will fight for it to the end, at the risk of blood
and death. And although my experience and strength are small, I
am nonetheless convinced that your great holiness will fill in my
insufficiency with the God-pleasing prayers characteristic of
you, both now when you are here with us, and when you shall have
departed.
+ + +
From Orthodox Word, vol III,
pp. 89-106. For further reading on St. Mark see:
The Lives of
the Pillars of Orthodoxy (Buena Vista, CO: Holy
Apostles Convent and the Dormition Skete, 1990). Contains
the lives of St. Photios, St. Mark of Ephesus, and St.
Gregory Palamas. Over 600 pages.
Ostroumoff, Ivan,
The History of the Council of Florence (Boston,
MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971).
|